Obama could reduce the level of U.S. spending abroad, cut back on intervention (he intervened in Libya and is intervening in Syria, for example, and sent troops to sub-Saharan Africa for reasons no one can explain), and bring home American troops. That is not the problem. We are no longer engaged in the debates of a half-century ago in this regard.

Similarly, no one is calling for America to be the world’s policeman. Not only are the resources and will lacking, but there is no need to play such a role. And besides, who wants a policeman who says the Mafia isn’t a threat?

We are not talking about isolationism versus engagement, multilateralism versus unilateralism, or military responses versus diplomatic efforts.

The issue is simply this one: when you say something or do something or spend something, whose side are you on?

No matter how active or inactive you are and no matter how much or how little money you spend, the key question is who you want to win, who do you see as your friends, and who do you see as threats.

This Obama team is on the wrong side

Let me put it in (American) football terms: We’re not arguing about whether you should pass or run the ball but which end zone you are heading for. If you are going the wrong way, you are only helping the other side, and will end up in (soccer) football terms with an “own goal.” And there is no safety in that.

38 Comments, 21 Threads

A marvelous blog, very concrete and accessible to educated laymen. Problem is, as Rubin knows too well, that Obama’s treatment of Israel does not echo Rubin’s recommendations and queries. Obama is very close to the late Eric Hobsbawm in his views of Israel, as I laid out here:http://clarespark.com/2012/12/08/hobsbawm-obama-israel/. Yes, it is that bad.

Our presidents worldview is that of Saul Alynski and Bill Ayers.
This is a President who appointed an active Communist (Van Jones) to his cabinet.
This is a President who seeks to cripple our economy and military.
This is a President who gives comfort to our enemies and dispareges our friends.
This is a President who is seen as week and feckless.
In short Barry, this president is a TRAITOR!

Traitor, incompetent, fool, who cares, Obama is sexy, that is all that is really important.

Off subject, I just read a blog entry by an Orthodox Jew complaining about conservatives bashing Hagel. The Obami cultists will do anything to avoid seeing the obvious. It’s time to update the “Madness of Crowds”.

Brilliant article! After the next four years of King Obama’s rule, I hope our United States will still be here as we know it. I expect our King to rule by executive order that he can serve as president forever…..I will be surprised if he doesn’t.

Excellent synopsis! The Obama team *is* consistently backing the wrong side — enemies of America– it is so true.(the evidence is overwhelming). And so horrifically disastrous. I just hope more Americans become aware and work against Obama.

“I just hope more Americans become aware and work against Obama.”
Remember that defiant 53% who put Obama back in the White House again after the minority with the common sense to keep him out were defeated. Remember the Democrat hold on the Senate, and the new women in the Supreme Court.

The pessimist in me says that we’ve now crossed a much lowered threshold where this nebulous and very elastic “new think” we call “multiculturalism” along with the conscious dumbing down of our grade school academics and liberalizing of the undergraduate level with useless course studies and fostering the “affirmative action” aspects of the entitlement culture have changed our country for good.

Our aim from now on should be to slow the advance of socialism, to keep out of foreign entanglements, and close our open Mexican border to all who don’t speak English and have means of support until they may, may become eligible for citizenship. On top of that we’re infiltrated with “sleeper” Muslims.

Interesting points, allow me to address (briefly) a few of them. I don’t think the 53 percent number should be taken too much to heart — remember, that the 53 percent is not 53 percent of all Americans — it’s just 53 percent of those who voted. (in other words, a subset of the population). Next, with respect to the whole demographic argument, for a variety of reasons, I think a lot of it is overblown (and I don’t think a particular minority should be singled out as the “culprit”). Personally, I would hope that the Republicans would take the higher ground and say something such as, “We’re not interested in bribing ethnic group X with x,y,z goodies so as to win their votes — that’s something which Democrats do. Rather we will reassert the Constitutional principle of equality for all under the law.” Next, I think Obama’s “plans” should be stymied as much as possible — through a legal route (law suits); 33 Senate seats will be up for grabs in 2014 and the GOP really needs to focus; and, if worse comes to worse, impeachment hearings. (but, I do agree with you about the uninformed electorate).

An extraterrestrial alien, monitoring America’s radio and TV broadcasts, would get the impression that conservatism is only for married straight white Christian humans, because those are the only humans that the GOP ever tries to win over.

The reason why Obama got elected–and re-elected–is because the GOP never even tried to sell conservative ideas to blacks, or to single women, or to atheists, or to gays and lesbians, or even (in many contests) to Hispanics. The GOP has tried to win the votes of Jews, but only by emphasizing Israel, not about emphasizing free-market economics.

For years, the GOP relied on a strategy of winning elections by mobilizing its married straight white Christian base. That strategy is now dead, since as a percentage of the total electorate, married straight white Christians are now only about 60% of the vote, and declining steadily.

Married straight white Christians can no longer decide an election by themselves. And until the GOP devises a new strategy to deal with that new reality, it will continue to lose Presidential elections.

You are arguing that logic will influence an electorate who has enjoyed peace and prosperity to the point their major concerns are reduced to the superficial. The contemporary electorate cannot envision or acknowledge a world without their current standard of living or freedom, let alone be persuaded that they are bringing one about. Rephrasing, we are dealing with an electorate that is more immature than any in history. They can best be reached by having sexy good looking spokespeople deliver any message. The message is not that important, just as long as a voter can think he/she is cool by endorsing it. Image, not content is all that really matters is the protected, insular world of contemporary America. Recall that in the 2008 election Obama girl was far more influential than Peggy Noonan.

Right. I’ve seen in several articles and comments people arguing for or against Obama’s foreign policy based on the assumption that he’s some sort of isolationist, that he will pull out American troops, resources and intervensionism from various places in the world and focus on domestic issues, that America will simply stay out and be neutral (which in some cases could be disastrous in itself). But Obama isn’t isolationist nor neutral. His policy is to try and win over enemies and rival/hostile players by, among other ways, moving away from allies and promoting the interests of those enemies, presumably so they would become friendly to the US. This is also based on the far leftist notion that America and its behavior is the worst problem in the world that causes most of the wars, injustice and misery, and on sympathy for socialism and socialist regimes and for Islam.

What are the problems with this sort of policy? After all, isn’t it good for America to turn enemies into friends? Well, there are some problems:

- If you betray your current allies they won’t remain your allies and might even become hostile. So even if Obama’s policy will succeed in turning enemies into friends (which is extremely doubtful), it will not make everyone like you and be your friends, but just inverse the roles – your former enemies will become your friends, and your former friends, at least the ones who survive your betrayal, will become hostile and might join forces with any of your rivals. While your current allies are not the type who would likely stage terror attacks against you if you help their enemies, they will try to thwart your influence and interests as part of protecting their own interests and survival.

- Since this policy involves not just selling out one or two of your allies, but a systematic betrayal of many allies in different parts of the world (this is already the situation now and it’s likely to get worse), even those who otherwise would have considered becoming your allies will think twice after demonstrating so comprehensively that you’re an unreliable ally that doesn’t have a conistent foreign policy and can suddenly turn on all its friends after the next election. You already have a bit of a reputation like that due to the different views and policies of different presidents, but it has never been so drastic.

- If this policy fails you will be left with very few allies since you would allienate many of your current allies without turning most of your enemies into new allies.

- In the global game there are different types of players with different types of interests. The idea that the USA is the only “bully” that intervenes, has interests and desires influence outside its borders, or in other words, the only one who is and/or aspires to be a regional or global superpower, is utterly false. This factual error leads to the idea that rivals who hate America only do so as a reaction to America’s “bullying”, and if only America stops behaving like it did in the past, and instead promotes the interests of those rivals, then those rivals will be content to remain in their limited positions, focus all their attention on domestic matters, and play along nicely with everyone else. The problem is that there are some other powers in the world who want to play the big game rather that confine themselves to domestic issues.

In the global ocean there are big fish and small fish. The big fish fight for territory and dominance in the big ocean – it can be on a mostly national basis, such as in the case of China, or on a mostly ideological basis, such as in the case of communism, Islam and democracy (in the American case). The small fish don’t have the strength or resources to participate in the big game and have limited interests, such as survival and prosperity. Therefore there isn’t a major conflict of interests in an alliance between a small fish and a big fish, as long as the big fish is content with limited influence and isn’t really an imperialist who wishes to overthrow the small fish’s sovereignty and make it a colony. Conversely, two big fish are rivals contesting for territory and dominance in the big ocean, so two big fish can only ally if they reach an agreement on how to divide the contested territories between them, or if they unite against a third big fish. Isolationists want to turn the US from a big fish to a small fish. That, however, will not prevent other big fish or aspiring big fish from wanting to turn the US into a part of their sphere of dominance. But Obama isn’t an isolationist. His brilliant idea of turning enemies into allies by promoting their interests disregards which type of players they are, big fish or small fish. By promoting the interests of other big fish you will not inspire them to become small fish, content with tending to their most basic interests like survival and prosperity. It will only make those big fish bigger and stronger, and embolden them to bid for more territory and dominance now that the main contestant is not only out of the game, but effectively on their side. They will try to swallow whatever small fish ally you desert, and if sucessful, then after swallowing them and utilizing their resources they will turn their eyes on you.

After reading every article you write, I can always say, Wow ! what masterpiece! Clearly pointed, the US don’t need to plunder its treasures on the pretext of aid and perplexingly to the … to the wrong people (not unless Obama is up to something in his sleeves beyond anyone’s fancies)…(He’s M….m you know it by now.)

“Former Senator Chuck Hagel, nominated to be Secretary of Defense, is also a signatory of what is known as the “Global Zero” plan. It calls for the United States and Russia to begin comprehensive nuclear arms negotiations in early 2013 to achieve zero nuclear weapons worldwide by 2030 in four phases.

“The first phase would be a reduction of the US nuclear arsenal to 1,000 weapons from its current level — some number slightly less than 5,000 warheads. While the US has now deployed 1,550 strategic nuclear weapons, the new total would include stored and reserve weapons, as well as warheads considered tactical and deployed in Europe, and therefore not regulated by current arms control agreements. By way of comparison, the former head of the US Strategic Command laid out in a summer 2012 essay the comparable Russian arsenal, which he estimated was probably in excess of 10,000 nuclear warheads – a number considerably higher than many current and previous estimates of the Russian nuclear arsenal, and nearly twice that of the United States.

“The Global Zero plan first would remove all US tactical nuclear weapons from US combat bases in Europe to storage facilities in the United States. However, while these tactical US weapons would no longer be able to defend Europe and NATO, Russian weapons would be able to attack all of Europe in a relatively short time – launching weapons from bases in Russia, where they would be stored, reconstituted and redeployed. Given the nature of such weapons systems, the verification of such efforts would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

“The real eye-opener is that the 1,000 ceiling for the US would include our tactical nuclear weapons and stored weapons for reserve emergencies, and the currently deployed 1,550 weapons. The implication is that Hagel is pushing an 80% cut in overall US deployed weapons. If done proportionately, that would involve a reduction to fewer than roughly 300 total deployed strategic nuclear warheads, a level less than China, and less than India and Pakistan combined.”

…

“There would also be a corresponding weakening of our deterrent umbrella over the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, just at a time when these three nations, and others, are threatened by an expanding North Korean missile and nuclear weapons capability and a major modernization program by China of its nuclear weapons.”

…

“The second phase of the Global Zero plan would occur from 2014-2018. In a multilateral framework, the US and Russia would agree to reduce to 500 total warheads each, to be implemented by 2021. All other countries, including China, Pakistan, North Korea and others, would freeze their nuclear stockpiles until 2018, followed by proportionate reductions until 2021 – irrespective of whether the US deployed arsenal was smaller and less effective than many other countries.”

…

“Moreover, this plan assumes that a comprehensive verification and enforcement system will have been established – including agreed-on no-notice, on-site inspections, and that safeguards on the civilian nuclear fuel cycle would be strengthened to prevent their being diverted to build weapons.

“The final two phases would include a “binding” ‘Global Zero Accord’ between 2019-2023, signed by all nuclear capable countries, for the phased, verified, proportionate reduction of all nuclear arsenals to zero total warheads by 2030. The whopping loophole in this plan is that any nation deeming itself not nuclear-capable could opt out of such an agreement, then be completely free to surprise the world with a nuclear arsenal once all the major powers had eliminated theirs.”

————————————————

Read it all in the link above. The naiveté actually made me burst in laughter, but I suspect I won’t be laughing so hard if it turns out the Obamadmin really has any intention of following that fantasy.

Re: Pnina 10:39
“The final two phases would include a “binding” ‘Global Zero Accord’ between 2019-2023, signed by all nuclear capable countries, for the phased, verified, proportionate reduction of all nuclear arsenals to zero total warheads by 2030. The whopping loophole in this plan is that any nation deeming itself not nuclear-capable could opt out of such an agreement, then be completely free to surprise the world with a nuclear arsenal once all the major powers had eliminated theirs.”

I think the author misunderstands the intention of the authors of the plan. The “loophole” would be avoided by granting power to an international body that would have the ability to deal with renegades. To these folks the loss of a city or two, especially cities in certain countries, would be a small price to pay for establishing world government.

Barry Rubin’s question boils down to “What kind of morality gives cohesion to our foreign policy?” Right now we are operating on the basis of Kindergarten morality. The only way to improve on it is to promote adult behavior over childish postures, in other words, work on the solidity of the culture. As long as a 30 years old student is allowed to cry in congress about who is going to pay for her birth control, we are only going in circles, and it shows in foreign policy, perhaps the government’s duty with the farthest reaching consequences.

I suppose that in our Football game, we will call time out until the next skyscraper hits the pavement, and then try to figure out what team we are playing against. Chances are, they are not wearing uniforms, so then we can go and fight a 13 year war against them and not figure out why we are fighting and the game will end up in a tie. I hate it when games end up in a tie.

At this point, after the re-election of the monster Hussein by the above-stated 53% of the people in this country, I couldn’t care less if another 911 catastrophe (or likely worse) happens in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, or any other large urban area. Further, if such a thing were to happen, I’d look upon it as a feature, not a bug, of our new foreign policy, since it would eliminate in one fell swoop a good many of the guilty creatures who gave us such an azz for preezy. I’m with the leftists now; the chickens are just coming home to roost. The leftists swept the table in the last election, taking each and every battleground state to achieve complete victory. They got what they wanted. The Constitutional Republic of old has now ceased to exist. Whatever sick and terrible thing happens now, whether foreign or domestic, is collectively owned lock, stock, and barrel by the degenerates who we used to call “Americans”.

After 9-11, Moore lamented that so many New Yorkers were killed who did not vote for Bush.

I’ll continue to wait for the GOP base to lose its anger and its bitterness. Until it does, it can’t hope to win over any more voters. Because right now, the sentiments I see expressed on blogs like PJ Media are ugly and a real turnoff to voters who might be receptive to an optimistic, inclusive, Reaganesque “Morning in America” message.

And sorry, folks, turnout of the GOP base won’t decide any more elections. There just aren’t enough married straight white Christians anymore.

I knew this country was gone when the areas that got hit in 911 (New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.) all voted for JeffinK (who is now SecDef) instead of GWBush in 2004. It was just amazing that the guy who launched a bloody war to defend these people was vilified as a warmonger by them, rather than carried on their shoulders like a hero. Now we’ve seen the election and re-election of a raving monster who has successfully led the destruction of the 230 year old Constitutional Republic that was the greatest political gift to mankind ever conceived in history; gone, totally gone. And this was aided and abetted by the “blue” state population. This monumental tragedy just corroborates that people in “blue” states are either stark raving nuts, or shockingly evil, and/or both. There is nothing that can be done by those in the “red” states to educate, inform, persuade, work with, or mollify creatures such as the lunatic leftists in the “blue” states. And now, after the last election solidified the rule of the Marxocrats for all time at the federal level due to unabashed electoral fraud, the only action that remains for those in the “red” states who value their freedom and liberty is to begin the process of nullification and secession to extricate themselves from the tyranny of the “blue” states and to rebuild the Constitutional Republic and the Rule of Law in those areas of the country that are still not completely in the death grip of the Marxocrats and their minions. I now view “blue” state people as the enemy of freedom and liberty, as I would view Russians or Chinese or any other alien, foreign power that seeks to enslave us all under a tyrannical dictatorship. And it appears to me that the Republican Party is full of ignoramuses who refuse to recognize, let alone accept, that we now live under the tyranny of a malevolent dictatorship that must be fought to the bitter end. Its all over but the shooting…

Sinz54, I believe your argument with respect to “demographics” is deeply flawed. If I understand your argument, you’re suggesting that Republicans only won elections in the past because they garnered the votes of white, heterosexual, Christian (right-wing) evangelical sorts. This is an argument that I hear all the time in Leftist circles (I think it comforts them, since they feel Republicans will never again be in power, unless of course Republicans begin to act like Leftists and start doling out the goodies for targeted groups.) In reality, the demographics in the United States have not shifted so radically between 2004 (Republican President elected) and 2012. A claim of changing demographics (IMO) fails to explain the Republican loss…I believe other factors were at play.

It is hard to know what to make of all of this. That is, it is still very hard to digest. Before people can make a contribution, they will have to digest it. My feeling is most of the commentators here have not. Neither have I.

It’s clear that Barry has written another great piece. The election and re-election of Barack Obama [though it almost certainly included helpful vote fraud] must mark some kind of watershed in American history. Without the demographic changes and educational indoctrination, he almost certainly would not have been elected in 2008 (even then, he benefited a great deal from a huge, apparently coordinated market sell-off in which very wealthy leftists and oil players participated). But he won. I was as surprised as most at his re-election.

The Republican self-evisceration has gone on for a while now. The demographic changes do not necessarily mean a permanent Democratic Presidency, though it’s tempting to yield to that thought. The educational influences, the indoctrination, are far tougher to overcome than the efforts to persuade minority groups that a Republican President is not some racist, super-rich country clubber by definition..

Then there is economic reality. Obamanomics, or whatever it is called, is not sustainable in a market economy. Of course, if he has succeeded (and it started with Roosevelt) in socializing the US and conditioning people to massive, ‘helpful’ government, then he will still gain support from people who suffer in the continued recession, or semi-depression. But many others still believe in earning a living, and are not sold on a Swedish dhimmistan.

The Repubs need a way to heal their wounds, face the challenges, toss the Roves overboard and cultivate candidates who represent values espoused on this Board. The real issue is then ‘are the Republicans up to it, or are they corrupt and just want their piece of the pie’? With Boehner, it looks that way.

I think the Tea Partiers should either break away and form a Conservative Party or tangibly threaten to do so. The Republican Establishment is not getting it to this point.

Citizens of other countries need to learn how heavily the deck is stacked against third parties in America.

The winner-take-all model of electoral votes which most (though not all) states use, mean that a third party has to win more votes than either of the other two parties to get any electoral votes at all. That’s a tall order for a brand new party that’s just starting to gain a national reputation.

Example: In 1992, Ross Perot’s Reform Party got 19% of the popular vote–a decent showing for a new fledgling party that had stumbled a few times during the campaign. Yet it got ZERO electoral votes–and that was the effective end of the Reform Party.

A third party would have to be built from the bottom up. There would need to be years, maybe decades, of victories in local, city, county, and state races before trying for the big prize–the White House.

When anyone talks about a third-party or independent candidacy in the context of a Presidential election only, you know they’re blowing smoke.

I’m fairly aware of that, having grown up in the US and lived there the majority of my life. I am aware as well that it would take some political combustion, following a Republican meltdown, for it to occur. In other words, it would be a party to replace the Republicans more or less.

If you are saying that it probably won’t happen, I agree. But I would ask you what will it take to build up the Republican Party so that it can represent ‘Reaganesque’ values and appeal to a broad cross-section? I agree with what you wrote to the previous poster (mostly), but I see no positive vision rising from the current stack of Repub pols.

In other words, I don’t say it lightly. I agree with many of those who say the Republicans appear to have failed to carry the weight of their beliefs forward. If the young leadership is for real, then now is really the time for a few of them to step forward and try to echo some of Reagan’s framework. I don’t see Paul Ryan doing that. Please propose some names…?

Wrong wrong. It may seem that Obama and the Democrats are in the drivers seat and there is no stopping them. The cracks in their support are already appearing. The anger of their supporters when they saw the rise of taxes that they pay now, when they were promised only the fat cats were to be hit. Once the costs of Obama care are felt, the anger will continue to grow. When Herr Hegel begins to dismantle our defense establishment, and with the subsequent loss of defense contracts causing economic hardships for all the states involved, then these areas will realize their mistake. As the economy continues to slide none of Obamas charm or the massive support from the media is going to help him and the Democratic Party.

Alas, once people realize that their salaries and futures are uncertain they will seek additional government support not less. First the Democrats wreck the economy and then help the public survive a wrecked economy. No one wants to vote for a party that promises relief a few years down the road.

“First, that wasn’t entirely true. It was John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson who took the United States into Vietnam.”

When making that statment do you intentional or inadvertantly misrepresent the factual historical timeline of events in Vietnam? If you don’t want to go all the way back to the start point, maybe at least, go back to Ike’s administration and work your way forward.

Okay, I’ll extend my left hand for a good ole hand shake then. This is a tough crowd to hang out with if one comes here with common sense and reality, so sometimes its hard to decipher the intent of their responses.